MAC Asterisk & Destined for Stardom Kissing Stars Lipstick Reviews & Swatches

Asterisk

MAC Asterisk Kissing Stars Lipstick ($20.00 for 0.1 oz.) has a blackened purple base with a mixture of bluish-violet, purple, and lighter blue sparkle and glitter throughout. It was appalling bad in application, and it lived up to… none of its claims; it didn’t evenly distribute color, it wasn’t opaque, and the texture was smooth.

I don’t know who let this one escape the factory, but it’s not a real surprise as every comparable shade (and they’re all quite close in color/composition) is about as poorly done. As cool as glittery lipstick has the potential to be, let’s dial down releasing shades not out of alpha testing.

It had semi-sheer coverage that didn’t build up well, as the more I tried to build it up, the more uneven the underlying color looked and clumpier the sparkles/glittery bits became, which resulted in an visibly uneven, more noticeably textured (though I wouldn’t call it gritty or painfully rough) the product looked on my lips. To add insult to injury, the color seeped into my lip lines, didn’t adhere to my inner lip area, and had worn down within two and a half hours of wear. I guess the nicest thing I could say about the formula was that it didn’t dry my lips out.

Top Dupes

View Swatches View All Dupes

Too Faced Trampula (LE, $22.00) is more shimmery, darker, cooler (95% similar).
Urban Decay Monarchy (P, $18.00) is more shimmery, cooler (90% similar).
Urban Decay Reverb (P, $18.00) is less shimmery, warmer, less glossy (90% similar).
Kat Von D Televator (P, $22.00) is more shimmery, darker, more pigmented (80% similar).
Tom Ford Beauty Trance (LE, $55.00) is brighter (80% similar).
Ciate Fortune (P, $19.00) is darker, warmer, less glossy (80% similar).

View Swatches

Formula Overview

$20.00/0.1 oz. - $200.00 Per Ounce

The formula is supposed to have "intense, ultra-creamy colour payoff" with an "ultra-smooth gliding texture" that has "even colour distribution and payoff." Just in case you weren't totally on-board with the idea that MAC meant for these to be pigmented, they also go on to describe these as having "an explosion of colour."

The pigmentation varied from shade to shade but over half of the shades had far under full coverage and none had full coverage. The formula struggles to apply evenly, as there's enough slip that the color seems to slide around and sometimes the glitter/sparkle clumped on itself when I attempted to build up coverage. A few shades looked visibly uneven and gritty on my lips, though I'll say they didn't feel gritty like you'd expect--a little texture at times but fairly smooth overall.

The texture was fairly smooth, emollient without being heavy or thick, and they were thinner (without being clingy), yet they had trouble adhering to parts of my lips, especially the inner areas. I was reminded of this line from the movie Clueless, "No, she's a full-on Monet... From far away, it's OK, but up close, it's a big old mess." The shiny finish coupled with lots of sparkle and shimmer--all reflecting light strongly--give the illusion that they aren't so bad from afar (like six feet away), but they are wretched if you look in the mirror (like a foot away).

The only way to make these "work" would be to layer them on top of a better-applying lipstick or lining lips underneath first and then using them to add sparkle. They had a subtle vanilla scent but no discernible taste.

These are also extremely similar to the Tom Ford Lip Sparks from an ingredient list perspective (they are almost the same) as well as from a performance perspective. (Both brands are owned by Estee Lauder.)

Browse all of our MAC Kiss of Stars Lipstick swatches.

Ingredients

Asterisk

Product

Pigmentation

Texture

Longevity

Application

33%

Total

We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

Sephora Beautylish Ulta Nordstrom More

Destined for Stardom

MAC Destined for Stardom Kissing Stars Lipstick ($20.00 for 0.1 oz.) has a sheer, almost translucent base with a moderate amount of both finer and larger particle iridescent sparkle and glitter. It translated into more of a bluish-silver effect with multi-colored flecks of sparkle at certain angles. If you needed to cast the most dastardly villain in a beauty-themed movie, this might be the candidate.

It clumped up so badly that it felt like patches of sand in places. It had semi-sheer pigmentation–at best, when swatched on m y arm–that translated from barely-there to semi-sheer on my lips as the product didn’t apply evenly. When I tried just a single pass of product, it was still sheer, uneven, and prone to sinking into my lip lines. Because it was supposed to have “intense” pigmentation, I tried to build up the coverage but failed miserably.

It had minimal wear time and spent most of the two hours it was on for creeping into my lip lines and separating along them but hey, at least it didn’t dry my lips out! Being generous, the feel of the lipstick going on, at least initially, was smoother than you’d expect, given the amount of shimmer/sparkle that’s visible.

Top Dupes

View Swatches View All Dupes

Tom Ford Beauty Bolt (LE, $55.00) (100% similar).
Too Faced Unicorn Tears (DC, $22.00) is more shimmery, more pigmented, cooler (90% similar).
MAC Eloquent Air (LE, $19.50) is less shimmery, warmer (85% similar).
Bite Beauty Violet Icing (P, $24.00) is less shimmery, more pigmented, less glossy (85% similar).
Urban Decay White Lie (P, $18.00) is less shimmery, less pigmented (85% similar).
Guerlain #999 (P, $33.00) is less shimmery, lighter, less pigmented (80% similar).
MAC Pearly One (LE, $19.50) is less shimmery, warmer (80% similar).
MAC Funfetti Cake (LE, $17.50) is more pigmented, warmer (80% similar).
MAC Sugar Cookies (LE, $17.50) is more pigmented (80% similar).
Anastasia Blizzard (LE, $20.00) is less shimmery, lighter, warmer (80% similar).